Why Linux is Better Than Windows 11

[god_damn@sh.itjust.works]

-Potentially faster installation

Installed CachyOs yesterday that must have been the longest install I have been through. I'm liking it so far though.

[golden_zealot@lemmy.ml]

It will differ by distro, but generally for debian, you begin uninstalling systemd by installing something else like SysV init:

apt install sysvinit-core sysvinit-utils
cp /usr/share/sysvinit/inittab /etc/inittab

Then you may need to configure grub by editing /etc/default/grub changing:

GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="init=/bin/systemd console=hvc0 console=ttyS0"

to

GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="init=/lib/sysvinit/init console=hvc0 console=ttyS0"

and then executing update-grub as root.

Then you can reboot so that the system boots off of sysvinit instead and then purge systemd with apt-get remove --purge --auto-remove systemd. This also removes packages that depend on systemd.

Then you pin systemd packages to prevent apt from installing systemd or systemd-like packages in the future.

echo -e 'Package: systemd\nPin: release *\nPin-Priority: -1' > /etc/apt/preferences.d/systemd
echo -e '\n\nPackage: *systemd*\nPin: release *\nPin-Priority: -1' >> /etc/apt/preferences.d/systemd

Depending on if the distro is multiarch, you might also need:

echo -e '\nPackage: systemd:amd64\nPin: release *\nPin-Priority: -1' >> /etc/apt/preferences.d/systemd
echo -e '\nPackage: systemd:i386\nPin: release *\nPin-Priority: -1' >> /etc/apt/preferences.d/systemd

[tux0r@feddit.org]

Wow. Honestly, thank you! I had entirely forgot that this wiki even exists. I’ve bookmarked your reply.

[slacktoid@lemmy.ml]

Maybe it's wrong of us to recommend Linux, maybe we should be recommending a specific distro. Mint comes to mind.

[slacktoid@lemmy.ml]

There are a lot of them out there dude. It's a world out there

[golden_zealot@lemmy.ml]

Of course, no worries. I seemed to recall there was something out there for this because I read some article a while back that was discussing the scope-creep in systemd, and the problems that result from it. I think I found this wiki originally at that time.

[foobarrington@lemmy.world]

Yep, adding a non-Ubuntu-distribution makes it a great recommendation.

[slacktoid@lemmy.ml]

Didn't mint move to Debian?

[foobarrington@lemmy.world]

Sorry, I meant any distributions that aren't Ubuntu. I don't mind Mint, even if it's based on Ubuntu!

[geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml]

I am talking about an official Linux OS since Ubuntu is "not Linux".

[slacktoid@lemmy.ml]

I didn't say Ubuntu is not Linux, I said Ubuntu is not the only Linux.

[aliteral@lemmy.world]

Far right nutjob? Crypto bro? That is what I have been hearing... Can't say for sure, though.

[kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone]

No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.

Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.

One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?

(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.

Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.

You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.

Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?

If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:

Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.

Thanks for listening.

• Linus Torvalds

[jumuta@sh.itjust.works]

I just said 'theme' has different connotations?